Tag Archives: teaching

Podcast Episode: Teaching And Leadership In Higher Ed

Leave a reply

Pip: Prof. dr. Remy Nyukorong apparently decided one framework for rethinking higher education wasn't enough — so this week covers the classroom, the faculty lounge, and the corner office.

Mara: That's a fair summary. The posts move across collaborative teaching methods, including a detailed proposal for the Harkness discussion model and a framework for team teaching, and then shift to authentic leadership and what it actually demands of the people running institutions.

Pip: Let's start with what happens when you rearrange the chairs — and the whole power structure with them.

Collaborative Teaching Practices

Mara: The central question here is whether the standard lecture format is actually doing what higher education needs it to do — and whether structured dialogue could do it better.

Pip: The Harkness proposal makes the case directly. Here's the framing from that piece: "The Harkness method should therefore be understood not simply as a seating arrangement or discussion tactic, but as a pedagogical commitment to active, collaborative, and reflective learning."

Mara: So the upshot is that this isn't a room-layout tweak — it's a claim about what learning is for. Students prepare in advance, bring that preparation into structured dialogue, and take shared responsibility for where the conversation goes.

Pip: Which is a fairly radical ask in lecture-hall culture. The proposal does acknowledge the practical friction — large enrolments, fixed seating, curriculum pressure — but argues the underlying principles translate even if the round table doesn't.

Mara: Right, and the evidence base it draws on is substantial. Freeman et al.'s meta-analysis of 225 undergraduate STEM studies found active learning significantly improved performance and cut failure rates compared with traditional lecturing. The proposal positions Harkness as consistent with that body of work.

Pip: The companion piece on collaborative team teaching extends the argument in a different direction — less about student-facing method and more about what happens when two instructors share genuine authority over a course.

Mara: That paper proposes a continuum, from a junior instructor providing supplementary support all the way to fully shared responsibility. The argument is that the most educationally valuable form is collaborative pedagogy, where co-instructors model intellectual exchange, negotiated interpretation, and constructive disagreement as ordinary features of scholarship.

Pip: Students learn the content and watch professionals revise their thinking in public. That's a different kind of lesson.

Mara: The framework also flags the institutional side — performance systems that only reward solo teaching quietly penalize exactly the collaboration the model depends on. The pivot to leadership feels natural from here.

Authentic Leadership And Stewardship

Mara: The leadership post takes up a parallel question: what does it mean to lead from genuine values rather than from a performed version of authority?

Pip: Bill George's framework gets a close reading, and the line that anchors it is this: "Authenticity in this framework is not mere self-expression; it is disciplined congruence. It requires honesty, self-awareness, openness to feedback, and the ability to form relationships that are credible because they are not performative."

Mara: What that means in practice is that authenticity is a sustained organizational behavior, not a personality type. The paper maps it across several concrete commitments — correcting unethical conduct visibly and quickly, removing executive perks that signal status over mission, and treating mentoring as a reciprocal responsibility rather than a favor.

Pip: The "crucibles" idea is the part that earns its keep — the argument that difficult experiences become leadership development only when a leader actually reflects on them rather than just surviving them.

Mara: And the "True North" concept ties it together: purpose as a stabilizing orientation that keeps decisions consistent when external pressures compete with internal values. The paper situates all of this within the broader scholarly literature on authentic leadership, including Avolio and Gardner's developmental framework and Walumbwa et al.'s measurable dimensions — self-awareness, relational transparency, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing.

Pip: The paper's honest about the limits too — authentic leadership is most persuasive as observable practice, not aspirational rhetoric.

Mara: Across both areas, the throughline is the same: the structures matter less than the quality of the relationships and commitments inside them.

Pip: A round table, a co-teacher, a leader who actually means it — next time, we'll see what else that principle gets applied to.

Collaborative Team Teaching in Higher Education: A Conceptual Framework for Effective Practice

Leave a reply

Abstract

This paper reviews and conceptualizes team teaching in higher education as a collaborative instructional practice that remains unevenly defined in existing scholarship. It argues that the most analytically useful understanding of team-teaching links structural coordination to a shared pedagogical commitment to collaboration. Drawing on literature on co-teaching and collaborative pedagogy, the paper advances a framework that positions team teaching on a continuum from limited instructional support to fully shared academic responsibility. It examines the pedagogical benefits associated with collaborative models, including intellectual plurality, enhanced feedback, and faculty development, while also identifying the relational and institutional conditions necessary for effective implementation. The paper further considers the implications of this framework for online education, where digital collaboration increasingly expands the feasibility of co-teaching. It concludes that collaborative team teaching should be recognized as a serious pedagogical strategy in higher education, particularly where institutional structures support shared teaching practice.

Keywords: team teaching, co-teaching, higher education, collaborative pedagogy, faculty development

Introduction

Team teaching functions as an umbrella term for a range of instructional arrangements in which two or more educators coordinate the planning, delivery, and assessment of learning (Rytivaara et al., 2024; Zach & Avugos, 2024). Despite its growing visibility in higher education, the literature offers no single, uncontested definition of the concept. Some definitions focus primarily on the organizational mechanics of shared teaching, such as who is present in the classroom, how tasks are divided, and how instructional time is allocated. Others emphasize the pedagogical rationale for teaching together, foregrounding dialogue, interdisciplinarity, inclusion, and collaborative knowledge production (Crow & Smith, 2005; Rytivaara et al., 2024). This conceptual ambiguity generates a practical tension. Definitions grounded in logistics can provide actionable guidance for specific instructional settings, but they are often difficult to generalize across contexts. By contrast, theory-driven accounts offer broader pedagogical direction, yet they may remain too abstract for instructors seeking concrete models of implementation. A more robust framework for team teaching must therefore connect practical arrangements to pedagogical purpose.

Literature Review

Although scholarship on team teaching in higher education has expanded, the field remains marked by significant analytical weaknesses. Much of the earlier literature is persuasive in advocating the pedagogical promise of co-teaching, especially its capacity to model collaboration, enrich classroom dialogue, and support reflective practice, but it often treats these benefits as self-evident rather than examining the conditions under which they are realized (Crow & Smith, 2005; Chanmugam & Gerlach, 2013). More recent studies have extended the discussion by linking co-teaching to faculty development and pedagogical change, yet this work still tends to privilege positive outcomes over the structural, relational, and institutional tensions that can constrain collaborative teaching in practice (Cordie et al., 2020; Haag et al., 2023). As systematic review evidence indicates, the field also continues to suffer from conceptual inconsistency, with key terms such as team teaching and co-teaching used unevenly across contexts, thereby limiting comparison and cumulative theorization (Rytivaara et al., 2024).

A further limitation concerns methodology. Much of the available literature relies on small-scale case studies, reflective accounts, or context-specific program evaluations. Although these approaches are valuable for illustrating practice, they provide only limited grounds for generalization across disciplines, institutions, and modes of delivery (Chanmugam & Gerlach, 2013; Cordie et al., 2020). Even recent higher education research that addresses engagement and satisfaction points to the need for stronger explanatory frameworks capable of clarifying not only what co-teaching can achieve, but also how particular models of collaboration generate distinct pedagogical consequences under different institutional conditions (Zach & Avugos, 2024). Taken together, the literature suggests that the central gap is no longer simply whether team teaching is valuable, but how it should be conceptualized and supported if its benefits are to move beyond aspirational claims.

This paper argues that the conceptual weakness of existing scholarship can be addressed by treating team teaching not as a single instructional method, but as a continuum of shared practice defined by varying degrees of collaboration, authority, and pedagogical integration. It further contends that the most educationally consequential form of team teaching is collaborative pedagogy, in which instructors function as equal partners and make intellectual exchange itself part of the learning process (Rytivaara et al., 2024; Zach & Avugos, 2024). On this basis, the paper demonstrates that the value of team teaching depends less on the mere presence of multiple instructors than on the relational, structural, and institutional conditions that enable collaboration to become pedagogically meaningful. The discussion proceeds by conceptualizing forms of team teaching, examining their pedagogical benefits, identifying the conditions for successful implementation, and considering their implications for institutional policy and online education.

Conceptualizing Team Teaching

Team teaching may be understood along a continuum defined by at least three dimensions: the degree of joint planning required, the level of content expertise expected from each instructor, and the extent to which teaching partners share a philosophy of inclusion and collaboration (Rytivaara et al., 2024). At one end of this continuum lies a limited-support model, such as an arrangement in which a teaching assistant or junior instructor provides supplementary instructional assistance under the guidance of a lead teacher. At the other end lies a fully collaborative model in which educators share authority, responsibility, and accountability for the course as a whole (Chanmugam & Gerlach, 2013; Zach & Avugos, 2024). Between these poles lie numerous variations, each shaped by disciplinary expectations, institutional constraints, and pedagogical aims.

Although multiple models of co-teaching may be appropriate in particular contexts, the collaborative pedagogy model is especially significant because it treats co-instructors as equal participants in the teaching process rather than as hierarchically differentiated actors (Crow & Smith, 2005; Rytivaara et al., 2024). In this model, collaboration is not merely procedural; it is itself a pedagogical orientation. Students are invited to witness intellectual exchange, negotiated interpretation, and reflective disagreement as ordinary features of scholarly practice. Collaborative team teaching therefore offers more than instructional efficiency: it creates a distinctive learning environment in which knowledge is presented as dialogic, provisional, and collectively constructed.

Pedagogical Benefits of Collaborative Team Teaching

The value of collaborative team teaching is evident in both student learning and faculty development (Cordie et al., 2020; Zach & Avugos, 2024). For students, one of the most significant benefits is exposure to multiple perspectives. When instructors differ in disciplinary background, interpretive emphasis, or teaching style, students encounter a richer and more intellectually demanding learning environment. Such exposure can strengthen critical thinking, deepen interpretive flexibility, and cultivate tolerance for ambiguity (Crow & Smith, 2005; Haag et al., 2023). Rather than receiving knowledge as a finished product from a single authoritative voice, students observe how academic understanding is generated through dialogue, debate, and synthesis.

Collaborative teaching also enhances the quality and responsiveness of instruction. With more than one instructor engaged in course delivery, students may receive feedback more rapidly and from a broader base of expertise. Classroom interaction may also become more dynamic, particularly when instructors model exchange, clarification, and constructive challenge in real time (Haag et al., 2023; Zach & Avugos, 2024). In addition, collaborative teaching can reduce disparities in curriculum delivery across groups or sections because shared planning encourages greater alignment in goals, expectations, and assessment practices. These pedagogical gains are accompanied by professional benefits for instructors, including opportunities for mutual learning, reflective practice, and the development of new teaching strategies through sustained collegial engagement (Cordie et al., 2020).

A further benefit lies in the symbolic and developmental dimensions of collaborative teaching. Students do not simply learn course content; they also observe how professionals communicate across difference, share responsibility, and revise their thinking in the presence of others. In this respect, team teaching models the collaborative and reflective behaviors that higher education often seeks to cultivate (Crow & Smith, 2005; Zach & Avugos, 2024). For new or early-career faculty, co-teaching can also serve as a form of situated professional development, offering a hands-on environment in which teaching expertise is developed through partnership rather than isolation (Chanmugam & Gerlach, 2013; Cordie et al., 2020).

Conditions for Successful Implementation

The success of team teaching depends not only on structural design but also on the quality of the relationship between teaching partners. Effective collaboration requires humility, honesty, responsiveness, and mutual respect. Co-instructors must be willing to learn from one another, to accept critique, and to engage in frequent and transparent communication (Cordie et al., 2020; Rytivaara et al., 2024). Equality is especially important in collaborative models of co-teaching. Even where instructors bring different levels of experience or distinct areas of specialization, the partnership must be organized so that both members retain meaningful responsibility and authority. Without such balance, collaboration risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive (Crow & Smith, 2005; Zach & Avugos, 2024).

Successful implementation also depends on clear communication with students and other stakeholders. The purpose of team teaching should be articulated at the outset so that students understand its pedagogical value rather than interpreting it as redundancy or inefficiency. Roles and responsibilities should be explicitly negotiated, yet these roles must remain flexible enough to support genuine interaction rather than rigid task segmentation. Shared ownership of the course, a common belief in the value of collaboration, and a willingness to model expected student behaviors all contribute to a coherent and credible co-teaching environment (Rytivaara et al., 2024; Zach & Avugos, 2024).

Institutional Implications and Online Education

If team teaching is to be sustained as a meaningful pedagogical practice, institutions must support it at the organizational level. The rationale for co-teaching should be tied not only to improved learning outcomes for students but also to faculty development, curricular innovation, and the long-term strengthening of academic quality (Cordie et al., 2020; Haag et al., 2023). Because effective collaboration requires additional planning, coordination, and reflection, performance evaluation systems must recognize these forms of labor rather than treating them as invisible or secondary to individual teaching performance. Institutional policies that reward only solitary instruction may discourage precisely the forms of pedagogical experimentation that collaborative teaching makes possible (Cordie et al., 2020; Zach & Avugos, 2024).

These considerations are particularly relevant in online education, where team teaching remains comparatively underexamined. Traditionally, virtual collaboration posed substantial challenges for team formation and instructional coordination. However, the expansion of digital communication platforms, shared workspaces, and synchronous teaching tools has significantly improved the feasibility of co-teaching at a distance. While not all courses or all instructors are equally suited to collaborative online teaching, the virtual environment increasingly offers viable conditions for shared course design, coordinated facilitation, and continuous interaction among teaching partners (Rytivaara et al., 2024; Zach & Avugos, 2024). As online and hybrid learning continue to expand, collaborative team teaching deserves greater attention as a model for enhancing both educational quality and faculty connection in digital settings.

Conclusion

This paper has argued that team teaching should be understood not merely as a logistical arrangement, but as a conceptually grounded form of collaborative instruction whose pedagogical value depends on the quality of the partnership, the clarity of its design, and the institutional conditions that sustain it. In response to a literature that often celebrates co-teaching while remaining conceptually inconsistent and methodologically limited, the paper has proposed a more precise framework for understanding team teaching as a continuum of shared practice, with collaborative pedagogy representing its most educationally generative form (Rytivaara et al., 2024; Zach & Avugos, 2024). This perspective shifts the discussion from whether team teaching is beneficial in the abstract to how different forms of collaboration shape learning, faculty development, and classroom interaction under specific conditions (Cordie et al., 2020; Haag et al., 2023). The broader implication is that collaborative team teaching should be treated as a serious pedagogical strategy rather than as an optional or supplementary arrangement. If higher education institutions are committed to interdisciplinarity, inclusion, reflective practice, and innovation across face-to-face and digital environments, they must also create the structural recognition, evaluative support, and professional cultures necessary for collaborative teaching to succeed. Under those conditions, team teaching becomes not only a method of instruction, but also a model for the kind of intellectual and institutional collaboration that contemporary higher education increasingly demands.

References

Chanmugam, A., & Gerlach, B. (2013). A co-teaching model for developing future educators’ teaching effectiveness. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 25(1), 110–117.

Cordie, L. A., Brecke, T., Lin, X., & Wooten, M. C. (2020). Co-teaching in higher education:

Mentoring as faculty development. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 32(1), 149–158.

Crow, J., & Smith, L. (2003). Using co-teaching as a means of facilitating interprofessional collaboration in health and social care. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 17(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356182021000044139

Haag, K., Pickett, S. B., Trujillo, G., & Andrews, T. C. (2023). Co-teaching in undergraduate

STEM education: A lever for pedagogical change toward evidence-based teaching? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 22(1), Article es1. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-08-0169

Rytivaara, A., Ahtiainen, R., Palmu, I., Pesonen, H., & Malinen, O.-P. (2024). Learning to co-teach: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 14(1), Article 113. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010113

Zach, S., & Avugos, S. (2024). Co-teaching in higher education: Implications for teaching, learning, engagement, and satisfaction. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 6, Article 1424101. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2024.1424101

A Concise Framework for Academic Writing Excellence

Leave a reply

Abstract

This paper introduces a streamlined framework for scholarly writing, concentrating on the fundamental principles that support effective academic communication. It explores the importance of clarity, coherence, critical engagement, and originality in shaping scholarly arguments. Furthermore, it details the methodology for structuring academic work and provides essential guidance on referencing, upholding academic integrity, and sharing research findings.

Introduction

Scholarly writing serves as the foundation of academic discourse, acting as the principal channel for the dissemination of research findings, theoretical progress, and critical analysis. The skill to produce well-refined scholarly papers is indispensable for researchers, students, and academics. This paper sets out to clarify the essential elements of effective academic writing, offering a succinct yet thorough guide for producing high-quality scholarly work.

Principles of Scholarly Writing

Clarity and Precision

Clarity is paramount in scholarly writing. Arguments must be presented in a way that is both precise and unambiguous, allowing readers to comprehend complex ideas without confusion. Achieving clarity involves choosing words carefully, minimising unnecessary jargon, and using specific examples to clarify abstract ideas.

Coherence and Structure

A clearly organised paper leads the reader logically from the introduction to the conclusion. This organisation is achieved through the use of clear topic sentences, smooth transitions, and well-developed paragraphs. Standard structures include the IMRaD format—Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion—for empirical research, as well as thematic or argumentative frameworks for theoretical work.

Critical Engagement

Effective scholarly writing requires critical engagement with existing literature. This means not only summarising previous studies, but also assessing their strengths and weaknesses, identifying gaps, and positioning one’s own work within the broader academic discussion. Such engagement demonstrates a deep understanding of the field and encourages the development of new knowledge.

Originality and Contribution

The merit of a scholarly paper is often judged by its originality and the significance of its contributions. Authors should aim to present new arguments, methods, or interpretations, and clearly state how their work extends understanding within their area of study.

Methodology for Academic Writing

  • Topic Selection: Choose a research question or theme that is both significant and insufficiently explored.
  • Literature Review: Undertake a thorough review of existing scholarship to situate the research and highlight its importance.
  • Argument Development: Develop a clear thesis and build structured arguments supported by evidence.
  • Drafting and Revision: Prepare several drafts, seek feedback, and refine arguments for clarity and logical flow.
  • Referencing: Properly cite all sources in the appropriate academic style (such as Harvard, APA, or MLA) to maintain academic integrity.
  • Editing and Proofreading: Carefully check the work for grammatical, spelling, and formatting errors.

Academic Integrity

Maintaining academic integrity is essential in scholarly work. Practices such as plagiarism, data fabrication, and misrepresentation compromise both the credibility of research and the reliability of academic exchange. Proper citation and transparent reporting of methods and results are vital for all scholars.

Dissemination of Research

The influence of scholarly work is maximised through effective dissemination. Researchers should aim to publish in peer-reviewed journals, present at academic conferences, and engage with open-access outlets. Additionally, sharing findings with non-specialist audiences can enhance the impact and relevance of academic research.

Conclusion Producing a well-refined scholarly paper requires balancing clarity, logical structure, critical analysis, and originality. By following these fundamental principles and adhering to rigorous academic standards, scholars can offer valuable insights to their disciplines and support the ongoing growth of knowledge.

Parental Involvement in Catholic Schools: Forms, Strategies, and Impacts on Student Outcomes

Leave a reply

Abstract

Parental involvement is widely acknowledged as a critical factor in the academic and spiritual development of students, particularly within Catholic educational settings. This paper examines the various forms of parental engagement in Catholic schools, differentiates between school-based and home-based involvement, and analyses their respective impacts on student outcomes. Drawing upon contemporary research and meta-analyses, the study highlights effective strategies for parent participation and discusses challenges and opportunities unique to faith-based schooling.

Introduction

Parents are recognised as the primary educators of their children, a principle deeply embedded in the ethos of Catholic education. Catholic schools operate in loco parentis, partnering with families to support both academic and faith formation. The significance of parental engagement extends beyond spiritual guidance, influencing students’ academic performance, motivation, and well-being. This paper explores the multifaceted nature of parental involvement in Catholic schools and evaluates the evidence regarding its effects on student achievement.

Forms of Parental Engagement in Catholic Schools

School-Based Engagement

School-based parental engagement encompasses all interactions between parents and the school community. Common activities include communicating with teaching staff, attending parent-teacher conferences, participating in parent associations, and volunteering for school events. Catholic schools frequently organise religious services, masses, and festivals, which serve as both spiritual and social gatherings. These occasions offer parents the opportunity to connect with educators and other families, strengthening the communal bonds central to Catholic education. Participation in extracurricular events such as plays, sports, and science fairs further enables parents to support their children’s holistic development and celebrate their achievements.

Parent associations are instrumental in fostering collaboration between home and school. They coordinate fundraising initiatives, social functions, and volunteering opportunities, offering structured avenues for parental contribution. Volunteering in the classroom, whether assisting with reading groups or art projects, provides parents with direct insight into their child’s learning environment and cultivates stronger relationships with staff. Such engagement is associated with positive academic outcomes, including higher test scores and increased graduation rates .

Extracurricular and Spiritual Involvement

Parental support of extracurricular programmes is vital for students’ broader development. Parents often act as coaches, club sponsors, or chaperones for school trips, thereby enriching the educational experience and fostering a vibrant school community. Additionally, parents who share their professional expertise or hobbies contribute to workshops and clubs, providing unique enrichment opportunities.

Catholic schools emphasise faith formation as part of their mission. Parental involvement in spiritual activities—including family masses, retreats, and religious education sessions—reinforces the school’s religious values and models faith in everyday life. Parents may also lead prayer groups or organise religious events, actively contributing to the spiritual life of the school.

Home-Based Engagement

Home-based parental involvement pertains to educational practices undertaken in the home environment. This includes establishing routines for homework, encouraging reading, and maintaining open discussions about schoolwork and expectations. Research suggests that parents communicating high expectations and regularly discussing school matters with their children have a strong positive effect on academic achievement . However, the impact of direct parental assistance with homework is more nuanced; while some studies report positive associations, others indicate potential negative effects, possibly due to greater involvement being prompted by student difficulties . Recent analyses propose that the context and quality of parental help are key determinants of its efficacy.

Discussion

The evidence underscores the multifaceted benefits of parental engagement for students in Catholic schools. School-based and home-based involvement each play distinct roles in supporting academic and spiritual development. While participation in school events and associations enhances community cohesion and academic outcomes, home-based practices—particularly those that foster communication and set expectations—are crucial for student success. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of parental involvement, particularly with homework, may depend on student needs and the nature of parental support.

Catholic schools, by virtue of their dual focus on faith and academics, offer unique opportunities for parental engagement. The challenge remains to provide accessible and meaningful avenues for all parents to participate, recognising diverse family circumstances and capacities.

Conclusion

Parental involvement is an essential component of the educational experience in Catholic schools, with demonstrable benefits for student achievement and faith formation. Both school-based and home-based engagement are important, and schools should continue to facilitate varied forms of participation. Further research is needed to clarify the mechanisms through which parental involvement impacts outcomes and to identify best practices for fostering effective partnerships between families and schools.

References

Castro, M., Expósito-Casas, E., López-Martín, E., Lizasoain L., Navarro-Asencio, E., Gaviria, J. J. (2015). Parental involvement on student academic achievement: a meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev., 14, 33–46. 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.01.002

Dallavis, J. W., & Berends, M. (2019). Parental involvement in schools as organizations: Examining consistent benefits, persistent challenges, and emerging issues. In M. Connolly, D. E. Spicer, C. James, & S. D. Kruse (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of school organization (pp. 491-508). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., et al. (2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105-130.

Harris, A. L., & Robinson, K. (2016). A new framework for understanding parental involvement: Setting the stage for academic success. Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(5), 186-201.

Jeynes W. H. (2012). A Meta-Analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs for urban students. Urban Educ., 47, 706–742.

Jeynes W. H. (2016). A Meta-Analysis: the relationship between parental involvement and Latino student outcomes. Educ. Urban Soc., 49, 4–28.

Li, A., & Hamlin, D. (2019). Is Daily Parental Help with Homework Helpful? Reanalysing National Data Using a Propensity Score–Based Approach. Sociology of Education, 92(4), 367-385.

Wilder S. (2014). Effects of parental involvement on academic achievement: a meta-synthesis. Educ. Rev., 66, 377–397.